Brief introduction plus Change 4 - what is it all about - what activities are envisaged? - Alan
ideas for synergizing both data collection but also larger conceptual issues
Interventions: Discussion began with how to address the issue of interventions - are we going to test interventions on the ground or just make recommendation?. Collaboration with the SLM program was suggested as a way to work with them to integrate the research findings into the design of their program and intervention strategies. Tilahun expressed some reservation about depending too much on them as there might not be much action from them over the course of the project period. There remains uncertainty about how much action research with specific interventions we will be able to do ourselves. But there was a consensus that before interventions could be recommended we need better baseline data.
Baseline/Livelihoods: ODI is currently designing the methods to provide a baseline on institutions, planning and innovations. This research will be carried out by a team of national researchers from the collaborating institutions There seems to be a consensus that more detailed baseline information - particularly in the area of livelihoods - needs to be gathered for the sites. Katherine is working on designing the outline for Focus Group Discussions to concentrate on specific livelihood and land-use issues for the sites. In addition, she is discussing with members of the geography and anthropology depts at AAU about having one or more Ph.D. student conduct his/her research through the project. Having a Ph.D. student would both build local capacity but also allow us to get potentially far richer inforomation about the sites. And finally, Katherine is meeting with OSSREA to discuss possible collaboration on a more in-depth livelihoods analysis of the sites. All agreed that a thorough baseline of site conditions is critical. Katherine agreed to act as focal point for all partners information needs so that crucial data can be gathered at one time during the livelihoods baseline work. Further discussion still needs to be had concerning the modalities of the livelihoods baseline work and whether FGDs on livelihoods should be conducted by the team doing the innovations baseline or separately. Eva suggested tha perhaps a 3rd person needs to be added to the team so that information on livelihoods can be incorporated into the existing plan. However, much depends on the level of data needs on whether this will be feasible. Also, there will be a need for greater supervision and coordination if we add more to the existing plan. As Emily Schmidt from IFPRI has conducted a large (1800 household) survey on livelihoods which covers our three sites, launching another household survey seems unnecessary. Emily is working with the data now and hopes to have some analysis ready by June/July. Katherine is working with Emily to combine our qualitative work with her quantitative. The qualitative work will focus on getting a more thorough understanding of livelihood strategies along with the drivers of land use change and constraints to adoption of RWM interventions (to incorporate comments by Fergus). In addition, as Eva noted, we should get information about who is doing RWM, what it entails and where it is being done.
Modelling: Charlotte made it clear that N4 will not be gathering any data on the ground and indeed depends on N2 for site level characterization. In addition to needing more information about livelihoods and land use in these sites, Tilahun also emphasized the importance of looking at upstream/downstream impacts and said that N4 should be able to capture these. Some discussion then focused on the role of the different N projects. Simply put, N3 is seen as scaling up what N2 produces, and N4 produces models at a larger Basin level from what N2 and N4 have produced. The hyrdology team will be doing bio-physical modelling of different development models within the different sub-catchments and this will be scaled up through N3. Amare brought up the need to include socio-economic data in the models and Katherine asked whether incorporating qualitative information such as farmers' perceptions would be possible. We still need to figure out how to link bio-physical impacts to socio-economic impacts. Fergus also suggested we need to be careful about the disjunction between hydrological units and socio-economic ones and other issues of scale between the field level and the Basin level. Wtih regards to the socio-economic part of the modelling, Kinde emphasized that N2 needs to be collecting the right sort of data for use in N4, though this might be difficult given than we do not plan to collect quantitative data right now.
update on plans for livelihoods/institutional aspects - Katherine?
How , when and who will carry out some of the field activities (such as in livestock productivity;feed sourcing and feeding; livelihoods)
Katherine highlighted the following issues:
· No need to go with household questionnaire
· Focused group discussion question guides can be added on planning, implementation and innovation questionnaire
· Some questions on local institutions are needed
· Existing sites description report by Kebebe/Alemayehu and Gerba is useful
· Livelihoods intervention can be gleaned from baselines
· One PhD and 1 MSc students will be involved
· Livelihoods questionnaire should be finalized before the end of this week.
· So far 2 persons are trained for baseline survey. With the addition of livelihoods, bio-physical and socioeconomic assessment, involvement of 3rd person is needed in each site and the number of days for field work must be increased given additional work
· A repayment of Kebebe should be sought from OSSREA (Katherine to liaises on Friday) or FSS (Tilahun will follow)
Updates on plans for developing a baseline of planning, implementation and innovation (Eva)
· Inputs from Mathew and Berhanu is needed before administering the questionnaire on planning, implementation and innovation
· Q: Do you collect quantitative data?
Ans: No, it is mainly qualitative
· Q:Is it possible to indentify NRM interventions based on this baseline study?
Ans: This baseline assesses the reasons for success/failures of previous interventions and suggest way forward
· Q:Are you planning to assess the impacts of with and without rainwater management interventions?
Ans: No every land management intervention is rainwater management intervention and making distinction is difficult. There will not be case controlled study. Some land management interventions are indirectly rain water management interventions.
· Q:Every farm and landscape is unique and interventions should be targeted. How can you make general recommendations for interventions based on this baseline?
Ans: We do not make general recommendations. Only options are given
Comment: In terms of scale we have field level interventions and basin level interventions. You have to be careful about the level you are dealing.
Identifying interventions that farmers know and what they don’t is important. Do not rely only on perceptions. Perceptions and evidences are different.
Comment: The three sites have different intervention gradients. The questionnaire should be site specific. Question guides may not give you comparable results for the sites.
Updates on N4 (Catherine)
· Q:How can you make maps and use instruments in all sites?
Ans: Maps are not our focus. Maps can be postpones.
Progress on MOUs (Tilahun): So far MOU has been signed with ARARI, Bahir Dar University and Wollega University. Ambo University is asking more questions and we need to sort out shortly. MOU with Bako is not signed yet (Alan will follow. Specific agreements need to be signed between the partners and IWMI (Kebebe to follow).
Update on progress with hydrological monitoring including some discussion of how this will link with other project components - Matthew?
including discussing the balance between biophysical measurements and modeling - if modeling who will do it/and which modeling tool to use /what are the envisaged outputs ( is there any modeling tool that can capture all project-biophysical outputs and how do we address the gaps?)
Update : in each woreda, 3 subcatchements have been selected. Equipment is now in process of acquisition. A soil quality map for the study areas are should be available soon. MoU with meteological institutes have been signed.
modelling : disagragated models will be used, based on soil slope and vegetation. Ground water and water flows will be modelled separtely which allows to calibrate and validate the models. The coding for these models will be done in Potsdam and Cornell. Based on data availability more detailed models cound be used at lower scales. Practicallity of impact mesure was discussed, also in term of socio-economic impact. Amare mentionned a cost benefit analysis done in an Australien university. Also the micro-economic impact of innovation through added crop, livestock and other livelihood will be assessed (hydro-economic modelling). There also might be a in depth survey by a PhD student to investigate how people make decision.
Also the concerns of the timing has been raised, as data form one project should be available to modellers in other projects to continue working. The idea of creating a modeler team has been mentioned.
Developing an inventory of RMS interventions - Amare?
Amare presented his report on different potential interventions. It is a very general work investigating potential intervention is sub-saharan Africa and their impact on livelihood and ecosystem services. There is no targeting and the situation on the ground has not been considered. At this stage Don is still working on the abstract and both documents will be loaded soon on the wiki.
It was pointed out that we should make sure to have some action research and learning alliances to define what farmers know and really want. As an entry point one could try a participatory modelling exercies. Also one could go back to the study areas with the baseline and use them to build the learning alliances. Tilahun mentionned that CPWF is ready to reconsider the budget if more means are needed for action on the ground.
N2 update meeting - Dec 8 2010
Purpose of the meeting is to get everyone in touch with what is going on in the different project components
Recording of the webex is here
Suggested agenda
Interventions: Discussion began with how to address the issue of interventions - are we going to test interventions on the ground or just make recommendation?. Collaboration with the SLM program was suggested as a way to work with them to integrate the research findings into the design of their program and intervention strategies. Tilahun expressed some reservation about depending too much on them as there might not be much action from them over the course of the project period. There remains uncertainty about how much action research with specific interventions we will be able to do ourselves. But there was a consensus that before interventions could be recommended we need better baseline data.
Baseline/Livelihoods: ODI is currently designing the methods to provide a baseline on institutions, planning and innovations. This research will be carried out by a team of national researchers from the collaborating institutions There seems to be a consensus that more detailed baseline information - particularly in the area of livelihoods - needs to be gathered for the sites. Katherine is working on designing the outline for Focus Group Discussions to concentrate on specific livelihood and land-use issues for the sites. In addition, she is discussing with members of the geography and anthropology depts at AAU about having one or more Ph.D. student conduct his/her research through the project. Having a Ph.D. student would both build local capacity but also allow us to get potentially far richer inforomation about the sites. And finally, Katherine is meeting with OSSREA to discuss possible collaboration on a more in-depth livelihoods analysis of the sites. All agreed that a thorough baseline of site conditions is critical. Katherine agreed to act as focal point for all partners information needs so that crucial data can be gathered at one time during the livelihoods baseline work. Further discussion still needs to be had concerning the modalities of the livelihoods baseline work and whether FGDs on livelihoods should be conducted by the team doing the innovations baseline or separately. Eva suggested tha perhaps a 3rd person needs to be added to the team so that information on livelihoods can be incorporated into the existing plan. However, much depends on the level of data needs on whether this will be feasible. Also, there will be a need for greater supervision and coordination if we add more to the existing plan. As Emily Schmidt from IFPRI has conducted a large (1800 household) survey on livelihoods which covers our three sites, launching another household survey seems unnecessary. Emily is working with the data now and hopes to have some analysis ready by June/July. Katherine is working with Emily to combine our qualitative work with her quantitative. The qualitative work will focus on getting a more thorough understanding of livelihood strategies along with the drivers of land use change and constraints to adoption of RWM interventions (to incorporate comments by Fergus). In addition, as Eva noted, we should get information about who is doing RWM, what it entails and where it is being done.
Modelling: Charlotte made it clear that N4 will not be gathering any data on the ground and indeed depends on N2 for site level characterization. In addition to needing more information about livelihoods and land use in these sites, Tilahun also emphasized the importance of looking at upstream/downstream impacts and said that N4 should be able to capture these. Some discussion then focused on the role of the different N projects. Simply put, N3 is seen as scaling up what N2 produces, and N4 produces models at a larger Basin level from what N2 and N4 have produced. The hyrdology team will be doing bio-physical modelling of different development models within the different sub-catchments and this will be scaled up through N3. Amare brought up the need to include socio-economic data in the models and Katherine asked whether incorporating qualitative information such as farmers' perceptions would be possible. We still need to figure out how to link bio-physical impacts to socio-economic impacts. Fergus also suggested we need to be careful about the disjunction between hydrological units and socio-economic ones and other issues of scale between the field level and the Basin level. Wtih regards to the socio-economic part of the modelling, Kinde emphasized that N2 needs to be collecting the right sort of data for use in N4, though this might be difficult given than we do not plan to collect quantitative data right now.
Katherine highlighted the following issues:
· No need to go with household questionnaire
· Focused group discussion question guides can be added on planning, implementation and innovation questionnaire
· Some questions on local institutions are needed
· Existing sites description report by Kebebe/Alemayehu and Gerba is useful
· Livelihoods intervention can be gleaned from baselines
· One PhD and 1 MSc students will be involved
· Livelihoods questionnaire should be finalized before the end of this week.
· So far 2 persons are trained for baseline survey. With the addition of livelihoods, bio-physical and socioeconomic assessment, involvement of 3rd person is needed in each site and the number of days for field work must be increased given additional work
· A repayment of Kebebe should be sought from OSSREA (Katherine to liaises on Friday) or FSS (Tilahun will follow)
· Inputs from Mathew and Berhanu is needed before administering the questionnaire on planning, implementation and innovation
· Q: Do you collect quantitative data?
- Ans: No, it is mainly qualitative
· Q:Is it possible to indentify NRM interventions based on this baseline study?- Ans: This baseline assesses the reasons for success/failures of previous interventions and suggest way forward
· Q:Are you planning to assess the impacts of with and without rainwater management interventions?- Ans: No every land management intervention is rainwater management intervention and making distinction is difficult. There will not be case controlled study. Some land management interventions are indirectly rain water management interventions.
· Q:Every farm and landscape is unique and interventions should be targeted. How can you make general recommendations for interventions based on this baseline?· Q:How can you make maps and use instruments in all sites?
Update : in each woreda, 3 subcatchements have been selected. Equipment is now in process of acquisition. A soil quality map for the study areas are should be available soon. MoU with meteological institutes have been signed.
modelling : disagragated models will be used, based on soil slope and vegetation. Ground water and water flows will be modelled separtely which allows to calibrate and validate the models. The coding for these models will be done in Potsdam and Cornell. Based on data availability more detailed models cound be used at lower scales. Practicallity of impact mesure was discussed, also in term of socio-economic impact. Amare mentionned a cost benefit analysis done in an Australien university. Also the micro-economic impact of innovation through added crop, livestock and other livelihood will be assessed (hydro-economic modelling). There also might be a in depth survey by a PhD student to investigate how people make decision.
Also the concerns of the timing has been raised, as data form one project should be available to modellers in other projects to continue working. The idea of creating a modeler team has been mentioned.
Amare presented his report on different potential interventions. It is a very general work investigating potential intervention is sub-saharan Africa and their impact on livelihood and ecosystem services. There is no targeting and the situation on the ground has not been considered. At this stage Don is still working on the abstract and both documents will be loaded soon on the wiki.
It was pointed out that we should make sure to have some action research and learning alliances to define what farmers know and really want. As an entry point one could try a participatory modelling exercies. Also one could go back to the study areas with the baseline and use them to build the learning alliances. Tilahun mentionned that CPWF is ready to reconsider the budget if more means are needed for action on the ground.
Charlotte's notes here